Unaccompanied minors- the case of Norway Her kan du skrive enhet/tilhørighet. Sett blank hvis dette ikke er aktuelt. Innhold i dette feltet styres her: Meny -> Sett inn (Mac=Vis) -> Topptekst og bunntekst Universitetet i Bergen Unaccompanied minors- the case of Norway Ragnhild Hollekim, Dep. for Health and Development, University of Bergen Marte Knag Fylkesnes, UNI Research, Bergen

Universitetet i Bergen Lecture outline The Norwegian context Numbers and trends Changing patterns and policy Immigration and resettlement Working with young people in municipalities Voices 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen The Norwegian context Population: 5,2 million Social-democratic welfare regime (Esping-Andersen, 2006) Regulated market Universal benefits and generous support systems Trust based Regional differences 422 municipalities 16.11.2018

Numbers and trends (arrivals) Universitetet i Bergen Numbers and trends (arrivals) A peak in 2007-2009 (in 2009: 2500 UM arrived in Norway) 2010 – 2014: 1000 to 1200 pr. year 2015: All time high: 5480 (The «October children») 2016: 320 2017: 191 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen 2018 – asylum applications Hvorfor kommer de? 16.11.2018

Who are they and where do they come from? Universitetet i Bergen Who are they and where do they come from? Most are boys Most often: 15-17 years from Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and Eritrea 2015/2016: The biggest group came from Afghanistan (on average younger) 2017: The biggest group came from Eritrea, followed by Afghanistan and Syria 16.11.2018

Changing patterns and policies: Residence Universitetet i Bergen Changing patterns and policies: Residence Historically, most UM have received permanent residency in Norway In 2014, for example: Permanent residence: 85% Turned down: 4% Temporary residence: 3% Returned to other European countries: 2% (Berg & Tronstad, 2015) 16.11.2018

Increase in use of temporary residence permits Universitetet i Bergen Increase in use of temporary residence permits 2009 – 2015: On average 4% (mainly an exemption clause) 2016: 14% 2017: 40% 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen Why? Necessary to send a signal to the world to prevent more children to flee home country? A «children’s best interest» argument Changed regulations for returning youth to Afghanistan (lower threshold) 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen Consequences Unsustainable integration processes established for large groups of youth A large number of young people flee a second time, when they are about to turn 18 Serious mental stress/mental health problems made worse due to insecurity concerning residence UM refugee- and asylumseekers, less protected that adult refugee- and asylum seekers? 16.11.2018

Mental health aspects and UM – what do we know from research? University of Bergen Mental health aspects and UM – what do we know from research? 80 % experienced war. 50% (PTSD) (Oppedal et. al., 2011) 49% of UM under 15, experienced violence in close relationships before migration (Jensen et. al., 2014 – NKVTS) Experiencing a variety of dangers while migrating Asylum process – high level of stress, unpredictability Vulnerability (Eide, 2012; Oppedal mfl., 2011)

The current political/societal debate in Norway Universitetet i Bergen The current political/societal debate in Norway Children’s rights, «the best interest of the child» and immigration policy/goals Children as instruments for sending political signals? Temporary residence and expelled at the age of 18 - child abuse? 2017: Assessment for «specific vulnerability» 16.11.2018

Working with young people in resettlement Universitetet i Bergen Working with young people in resettlement Early years: 2002- 2007 Challenges: Reception centers: staff, standard, follow-up Childrens’ voices not heard in decision-making No/little information from reception center Challenging transition for youth - frustration 16.11.2018

Child welfare services Pathway(s) to resettlement Reception Residency permit Municipality settlement Seeking asylum Interview (police and gardian) UN - refugees Independence Child welfare services VS Refugee services 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen Variation 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen The case of Bergen Planned transition: reception – municipality Listening to young peoples wishes and perspectives Focus: trusting relationships with adults School, health, building networks Child perspective and migrant perspective Different living arrangements – individual needs 16.11.2018

Living arrangements - research Universitetet i Bergen Living arrangements - research Residential unit with full time staff Staff: Care and present staff Daily routines Safety and predictability Community with other UM Group home with part time staff Staff: social worker leading Young people help each other – each others resources More freedom and independence (Garvik et al, 2016) 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen Independent living Flat with no/some follow up Value: freedom and self-dependence, learning independence Avoiding institutionalisation Young people miss: support and follow-up Feel unsafe and lonely Recommended: as transition out-of-care + for older youth (Garvik et al, 2016) 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen Foster homes Knowledge gap Policies in general - push towards foster home placement Stable relationships and safety Knowing «culture» and learning the language Support in transition towards adulthood Challenge: placement break downs Recruiting suitable families Young people: miss community of UM 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen Some challenges Changing immigration patterns – implications for services School Negative attitudes and discrimination Integration and sense of belonging 16.11.2018

Universitetet i Bergen Young peoples voices Example from research 16.11.2018